2010 OSU Football

[Roy Tucker]

Well Tressel didn't really lie (in his version of the story). He didn't perform his job duties according to how his bosses and most people believe he should have, but that's not lying.

I like Tressel as much as anyone in here but I can't see how you can say he didn't lie.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footbal...caa-violations

• Tressel signed a document on Sept. 13, 2010 that said he was not aware of NCAA violations.

• He failed to tell school officials on or around Dec. 9, 2010 about emails he received in April explaining players’ involvement in selling memorabilia.

• He did not tell school officials about the emails – or his knowledge of players selling memorabilia -- when specifically asked on Dec. 16, 2010. He also misled school officials that day when stating he “did not recall from whom he received the tip,” and that he “did not know that any items had been seized.”

[SeeinRed]

Well Tressel didn't really lie (in his version of the story). He didn't perform his job duties according to how his bosses and most people believe he should have, but that's not lying.

That may be a pretty rosy view of what happened IMO. Maybe you couldn't say that he flat out lied, but he didn't tell the truth either. Its a gray area, however he did sign a compliance document in September which I would classify as very close to, if not lying. He also sat on the information in December by saying he had heard rumors but nothing specific. Thats clearly not the full truth. Its not just a job duty he failed to oblige, its a serious rule. Most coaches don't survive this violation. Tressel has probably earned the chance to survive it, but it'd be hard to argue that the NCAA won't take this very seriously and probably add to the penalties that OSU has suggested.

[BuckeyeRed27]

I like Tressel as much as anyone in here but I can't see how you can say he didn't lie.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-footbal...caa-violations

Ok when it got into that part I would agree that in any view he was lying. But if you go with his excuse I guess you could say he was still waiting for the investigation to wrap up so if he comes forward in September it's still the same as April.

[Captain Hook]

I really don't want to seem like a bad person here but I have to be honest.I would have lied as well.I would have misled and withheld information and probably would have been fired.I don't agree with the rule that was broken.To put it simply, it's a stupid rule.If these guys can't do what they want with the things the get from playing at a university then don't let them have these things.

Now I would follow these rules but I wouldn't want to see anyone punished because they didn't.If I was asked straight up to incriminate I would simply say I'm not sure or I don't know.I didn't see anything.Even if it was my obligation to make sure that others followed these rules I would handle it the same.I know that a person in an authoritative position not following all rules and enforcing them accordingly can be a dangerous path to go down but I don't care.

There, I said it.I don't care.Tressel didn't break any laws.He didn't cover up for anyone that did.He didn't help anyone cheat academically.He didn't cover up anyone cheating academically.He hasn't paid anyone to come to OSU.He hasn't broken a single rule that has now given the Buckeye's an unfair advantage recruiting.At worse he failed to report a infraction of a stupid rule that would of made some of his better players ineligible.

So to sum it up.It's a stupid rule and I don't care.BTW I would undoubtably feel the same way if this was any other university or coach that was involved.

[cincrazy]

Did anyone catch the portion of the press conference when Tressel was asked if he forwarded the emails to anyone else? He replied "Uh-huh," before Gene Smith cut him off and announced to the media that wasn't a question OSU could answer due to the investigation or some nonsense. If it's found that Tressel forwarded that email to a higher up, and it was ignored, the NCAA will drop an atomic bomb on this football program.

[kaldaniels]

nm

[traderumor]

Willfully gullible sounds bad.

Let me explain.

Those that want to believe in the man (and the university) will find a reason to believe him. They want to believe.

That's all I'm saying. I mean no disrespect and am sorry if anyone takes it as so.

I would also say that those who do not like Tressel will have the same dynamic in such a discussion, except its "see, I told you so." There is certainly more to this story than "gee, this would really screw up our football season, I'm gonna sit on this." But if you don't like Tressel, or conclude that all NCAA coaches are dishonest and cheating, then this will fit that presupposition.

BTW, I'm not seeing how expanding the explanation to "blind faith" is better than "gullible."??

[Sea Ray]

I really don't want to seem like a bad person here but I have to be honest.I would have lied as well.I would have misled and withheld information and probably would have been fired.I don't agree with the rule that was broken.To put it simply, it's a stupid rule.If these guys can't do what they want with the things the get from playing at a university then don't let them have these things.

I think most coaches would have. We know for sure that Bruce Pearl and Jim Calhoun at U Conn have. But any coach that does lie runs the risk of getting caught and that's what happened here

[Brutus]

My point, though obviously poorly made, is that Tressel's claim that he was protecting his players rings false on every level.

It makes no sense logically or psychologically. To whit:
1) He's a coach who's used to making decisions and taking charge. He did neither for perhaps the first time in the past 25 years. That goes against his very nature. (Or at least the nature that has presented itself for almost a quarter of a century.)
2) His insistence that he was somehow protecting his players by keeping his mouth shut makes no logical sense, in that protection (and confirmation) was easy to find and keep by asking for federal assistance.
3) Not only did Tressel kick his players under the bus for pulling this crap (deservedly-- they broke the rules and knew it), he showed a hypocritical streak a mile wide. First, when it first broke, he claimed his guys were ignorant. (I still can't believe the NCAA bought that pile of steaming... logic. Oh, wait. It's the NCAA and OSU-- yes, I can.) Then, he took them to task for breaking rules when he had also knowingly broken the rules himself.

In other words, I think he's lying in order to get out of more trouble with the NCAA. (This is now commonly called "Pulling a Pearl.")

You can't possibly say it's false because you don't know for sure what Tressel was thinking. It may be false, but just because you don't agree that was his rationale doesn't mean it wasn't.

Personally, I don't think the players' security was the reason he did what he did (or didn't do what he didn't do, more aptly). But I also am not in his mind so I, nor can you, say it's "false." Yes?

The first email indicated the guy had a criminal history. I can see how someone would be concerned by that. That said, I don't think doing nothing is a good way to take the players' safety into your own hands, but I also think it would be presumptuous to automatically assume that therefore it was false that he wasn't concerned by it.

[Scrap Irony]

You can't possibly say it's false because you don't know for sure what Tressel was thinking. It may be false, but just because you don't agree that was his rationale doesn't mean it wasn't.

Personally, I don't think the players' security was the reason he did what he did (or didn't do what he didn't do, more aptly). But I also am not in his mind so I, nor can you, say it's "false." Yes?

The first email indicated the guy had a criminal history. I can see how someone would be concerned by that. That said, I don't think doing nothing is a good way to take the players' safety into your own hands, but I also think it would be presumptuous to automatically assume that therefore it was false that he wasn't concerned by it.

Just because he's from your university doesn't mean you should give up logic for blind faith and irrefutable proof. The only tools we have as posters--logic and common sense-- insist this is an open and shut case of guilt.

We can't ever know with 100% certainty that Tressel lied. Logic and commons sense said he did. That's good enough for me. Oddly, that's been good enough for you in the past, especially when discussing The Case That Shall Not Be Named.

[Brutus]

Just because he's from your university doesn't mean you should give up logic for blind faith and irrefutable proof. The only tools we have as posters--logic and common sense-- insist this is an open and shut case of guilt.

We can't ever know with 100% certainty that Tressel lied. Logic and commons sense said he did. That's good enough for me. Oddly, that's been good enough for you in the past, especially when discussing The Case That Shall Not Be Named.

I'm not sure what more I could say about it that makes you think I'm not being objective. For starters, it's not "my" university. I never went there. I grew up following Ohio State and covered them, but believe me, I've never had a problem taking them to task when necessary. I've already said I don't agree with how he handled it and don't believe everything he said on the issue. But I just don't think anyone can be so sure they say it's "false" since none of us can know for sure.

I'm not taking you to task for not believing him. All I'm saying is that you have to admit you don't know for certain what was going through his mind.

[Chip R]

What Would Woody Hayes Do?

[LoganBuck]

What Would Woody Hayes Do?

Woody Hayes had his own NCAA extra benefits mess. He would give players money out of his own pocket. He then refused to cooperate when the NCAA came to look into this practice. There is a blurb about it toward the end of this link.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...d.html?sid=101

[Captain Hook]

I think most coaches would have. We know for sure that Bruce Pearl and Jim Calhoun at U Conn have. But any coach that does lie runs the risk of getting caught and that's what happened here

I think when you have a rule that most reasonable men would break you should start looking at the rule a little closer.There's little doubt in my mind that Tressel knew the risk but he still played his cards the way he did.When someone like Jim Tressel breaks a rule he's questioning that rule weather he admits it or not. Questioning the NCAA and the way they do things is something that most of us do all the time.I really doubt that the way the National Championship in football is decided every year is the only thing they have trouble figuring out.The whole system has flaws and every year steps are made to correct these flaws.This is an admission of these flaws by the NCAA.Just because someone chose not to follow a rule that now exist within that system does not mean that this person is bad,lacks integrity,is a lier or shouldn't be rusted to be a head coach.

I can't believe I hear a local radio guy and many callers on his show here in Columbus suggesting that that OSU should look long and hard at replacing Tressel.I really hope this all passes and not much else is done.If it does pass, I have no doubt that OSU and Jim Tressel will go on for the next ten years just as they have the last ten years.

[SeeinRed]

I think when you have a rule that most reasonable men would break you should start looking at the rule a little closer.

Couldn't disagree more. Just because the pressure to win is greater than the pressure to follow the rules doesn't mean that the rules aren't relevant or correct. The fact that some fans would place winning over following the rules that all Universities are held to says more about them than the rules in general. If benefits like those that are able to be offered by OSU are allowed, college football becomes more about the blue bloods than the sport itself. Its already swayed in that way, but allowing it to head that way even moreso would be an absolute travesty.

Arguing that the rules should be changed because a lot of high profile schools and players don't follow them gets really old really quickly. Most college athletes are just happy to be playing on scholarship. The top 5-10% ruins college sports for the rest. The average college athlete is not going to make it anywhere past college in thier sport. Most use the opportunity to get thier degree. Fans have completely lost sight of that fact. Lets not act like this is another step that athletes take before being a professional athlete, because for most it isn't. For most, it is their last oppurtunity to play the sport they love before they have to join the workforce like the rest of us. Most follow the rules, and most have to struggle through their college careers financially. I've met those kids, and even worked closely with them. They don't live the glamorous life we would be led to believe college athletes do. Most have it worse in college than I did. Why would I want the NCAA make life easier on the top 5-10% for the sake of letting them play with the kids who want to be there?

I have no sympathy for these players mking money while in college, or the coaches making money off these kids. Its about the kids who come from nothing to earn the scholarship and sit on the bench just to get their degree. They are the true victims in all of this, not coaches or players who are caught breaking the rules. Its time for some true perspective in all of this. Especially in football, there are two tiers. The haves, and the have nots. The worst part is that it is my fault. Not just me, but everyone who cares more about winning than what a University should be about. That includes almost everyone sadly. As a society we have failed the 90-95% of athletes who want to earn their degrees and succeed in their professional careers beyond sports. We make winning a priority, not graduation or morality. Sadly, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even for me.

Sorry for the rant, but claiming the rules need changed really loses sight of the fact that the rules would be changed for a minority, not the majority.